The Issue The issues in this case are: Whether Respondent, Everest University (the "School"), discriminated against Petitioner, Hashim Aboudaya, on the basis of his place of natural origin (Middle Eastern), race (Caucasian), and/or religion (Muslim) in violation of the Florida Civil Rights Act by twice failing to promote Petitioner to the position of associate dean or director of Student Services; and Whether the School retaliated against Petitioner based on his place of natural origin, race, and/or religion by refusing to pay for his doctoral level college courses.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a Caucasian male, born in Lebanon and, therefore, of Middle Eastern heritage. He is a practicing Muslim. In July 2003, Petitioner began teaching as an adjunct professor at the School, teaching computer information services and teaching a few classes per year. In or around August 2007, Petitioner was promoted to senior network administrator, a non-teaching position, for the School. At all times relevant hereto, Petitioner served in that position. He currently teaches classes on an as-needed basis also. The School is a private college formerly known as Florida Metropolitan University. There are ten related campuses in the State of Florida, with one being in Melbourne, Brevard County, Florida. The Melbourne campus has two locations, one on Sarno Road and the "main" campus on U.S. Highway 1. Petitioner holds two master's degrees, one in management and one in computer resources and information management, from Webster University in Saint Louis, Missouri. He is pursuing a third master's degree, but it is "on hold" pending his completion of studies in a doctoral program. The doctoral program being sought by Petitioner is in the field of business administration with a major field of study in computer security. The degree is being pursued on-line through Capella University based in Minneapolis, Minnesota. Petitioner's resume indicates that the Ph.D. will be "done in the end of 2007," but it has obviously taken longer than planned. Petitioner has applied for several vacancies listed at the School, but for purposes of this proceeding, the following are relevant: (1) The associate academic dean position advertised in January 2010; (2) The associate academic dean position advertised in April 2010; and (3) The director of Student Services position advertised in August 2009. Associate Academic Dean Positions The following qualifications were specified in the School's job description for the associate academic dean positions. The applicant must: Possess the necessary academic credentials and work related experience mandated by the Company, State accreditation agencies and any other regulatory agency that monitors compliance. Have a minimum of 2 years practical work experience in business or education. Have a minimum of 1 year teaching experience, but The years of experience may be waived at the sole discretion of the college president so long as the incumbent meets the accreditations, State and Federal requirements necessary to hold the position. There was also a job posting (as opposed to a job description) for the associate dean position on a website associated with Corinthian Colleges, Inc. ("CCI"), the School's parent company. That job posting indicated that a master's degree was required for the job and included other requirements not set out in the School's official job description. The college president, Mark Judge, could not verify the accuracy of the job posting. There is no persuasive, credible evidence that the job posting was produced by the School or intended to be used as the basis for filling the associate dean position. The first associate dean position was for the Sarno Road site which housed the School's allied health programs, e.g., medical assistant training, pharmacy technician associate degrees, medical insurance billing and coding, and healthcare administration. Besides the requirements set forth in the job description, the School was looking for someone with health- related experience as well. Terri Baker, a registered nurse, was ultimately hired to fill the associate dean position. Baker had approximately 20 years of experience with the School. During that time, Baker had taught classes in the allied health program, had served as a program director, and was an associate dean at other campuses within the CCI system. Baker does not hold a master's degree, but the job description issued by the School does not require that level of education. The job posting, which appeared in a publication issued by the School, does say that a master's degree is required, but there is no competent and substantial evidence to suggest the job posting supersedes the job description. Notwithstanding her level of schooling, it is clear Baker was a perfect fit for the job. The decision to appoint her, rather than Petitioner, to the position was based on factors other than race, national origin or religion. The second associate dean position was advertised in the Spring of 2010. The job description for that job is the same as the previous associate dean position. However, there are many different duties and expectations associated with the second position. For example, while the first position was related directly to the allied health programs at the School, the second position had a different focus. The person filling this position would be working on the main Melbourne campus, rather than the satellite campus. His or her duties would be directed toward tasks such as transfer of credit analysis, scheduling, and registering new students. The dean would also be responsible for monitoring the School's compliance with accreditation standards and internal audit standards. Betty Williams was hired to fill the second associate dean position. Williams had significant management experience in academic settings. She had served as an academic dean for one of the School's competitors and had extensive knowledge and experience with compliance accreditation standards. As compared to Petitioner, Williams was a much better fit for the position. Her experience would allow her to step into the position and begin working on problems immediately without the necessity of a period of training and acclimation. Director of Student Services Position The director of Student Services was expected to help students who were experiencing hardships in their academic progress. The director would help students who were forced to withdraw from school for financial or other personal reasons. He/she would provide support for students taking online classes and assist students trying to re-enroll into school following dismissal or withdrawal. A close working relationship with students was an important factor in this position. The School's job description listed the following requirement for the director of Student Services position: Bachelor's degree required Minimum of 3 years practical work experience or equivalent training Excellent communication and customer service skills Excellent computer skills The person who ultimately was hired for this position, Stacey Jacquot, was an outstanding employee at the School and had been selected as its Employee of the Year in two different positions. Jacquot is a Caucasian female; neither her religion, nor her place of natural origin was alluded to at final hearing. The hiring of Jacquot, as opposed to Petitioner, for this position was based on Jacquot's experience and background. She had worked in the student services department for the school as both an online coordinator and as a re-entry coordinator. Thus, her experience was directly related to the requirements of the position. Petitioner provided unsubstantiated testimony that by virtue of his teaching a number of classes over the past few years, he has some experience in counseling students concerning their issues. However, even if true, his experience did not match that of Jacquot. Request for Reimbursement for Doctoral Coursework Petitioner alleges retaliation by the School. The specific retaliatory action was the denial of his request to be reimbursed for coursework as he pursued a doctorate degree. In February 2010, Petitioner submitted a request to the School, asking that tuition expenses for his coursework be paid under the School's tuition reimbursement program. The program is set forth in policies maintained by the School and is available to "eligible employees for eligible classes." A benchmark for reimbursable tuition is that the courses being taken enable the employee to be more efficient in a current role or prepare them for a role at the next level of their employment. There are a number of written policies addressing the tuition reimbursement program. Those policies are fluid and have changed from time to time over the past few years. The policies are implemented and overseen by the director of Organizational Development for CCI, Jeanne Teeter. Teeter resides and works in California, corporate home of CCI. It is Teeter's duty to ultimately approve or deny all requests for tuition reimbursement by employees of all of CCI's colleges around the country. Teeter reviewed Petitioner's request for tuition reimbursement pursuant to a preliminary approval by the School's president, Mark Judge. It was Judge's initial decision to approve Petitioner's request, but Judge sent it to Teeter for a final decision. Teeter had never met Petitioner and did not know anything about him, except as found in his personnel file and his application for tuition reimbursement. Teeter, as was her normal procedure, considered the relevance of the degree being sought, not only to Petitioner's current role, but as to potential future roles as well. Because the course work for which reimbursement was being sought related to an advanced degree, a doctorate, Teeter was less inclined to approve it. Approval would necessitate a clear line of sight between the employee's current role to a role that would require a Ph.D. Inasmuch as Petitioner's role as senior network administrator did not require a doctorate and there was no clear line of sight between his present position and that of a professor or management employee requiring one, Teeter declined the request. At the time she made her decision, Teeter was not aware that Petitioner had made a discrimination claim against the School. Her decision, therefore, could not be retaliatory in nature. Rather, she acted in concert with the policies that address tuition reimbursement and made a decision based solely upon those policies. Petitioner appears to be an energetic and hard-working member of the School's staff. His testimony was credible, but was sometimes off the point. Although he is a well-educated person with three college degrees and is pursuing others, it is clear that English is his second language.1/ Petitioner seemed to be sincere in his belief that he was discriminated against, but did not provide persuasive evidence to support that claim.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Florida Commission on Human Relations dismissing the Petition for Relief filed by Hisham Aboudaya in its entirety. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of November, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S R. BRUCE MCKIBBEN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of November, 2011.
The Issue Whether disciplinary action should be taken against Respondent's educators certificate.
Findings Of Fact In the 2000-2001 school year, Respondent, Elizabeth Weisman, held a Florida Teaching Certificate No. 475382. The certificate covered the areas of elementary education and mathematics and was valid through June 30, 2005. When the events herein occurred, Respondent was employed as a dropout prevention teacher at Second Chance School in Tallahassee, Florida. The school is part of the Leon County School District. There is no evidence that Respondent has been disciplined by Petitioner on any prior occasion since she began teaching in Leon County in October 1980. Second Chance School is a school for children with disciplinary problems and who have a history of being extremely disruptive and cannot be handled in a regular school setting. Ms. Weisman was in a difficult position when she started teaching at Second Chance School. She was assigned to teach outside her field and was replacing a teacher who was not as strict a disciplinarian or as demanding of performance as Ms. Weisman. In general, her students did not react well to the increase in discipline and expectations of performance and likely caused increased referrals to the principal's office. Both Ms. Weisman and the students had to adjust to each other On April 6, 2001, J.M. entered Respondent's classroom. Respondent asked him to leave her classroom. He was not supposed to be in the classroom because he had been referred to the principal's office the day before for discipline. J.M. attempted to comply with Respondent's request, but a number of students entering the room blocked him from leaving. Respondent made a shooing motion with her hands to J.M. and raised her foot to indicate for J.M. to leave the room. The gestures were done in a playful manner and were intended as such. While Ms. Weisman's foot was raised, she accidentally brushed or pushed J.M.'s buttocks with her foot. J.M. could feel the push. However, it did not cause him to lose his balance or cause any harm to him whatsoever. The evidence did not demonstrate that J.M. was unduly embarrassed or otherwise affected academically by the incident. Indeed, the incident gave J.M. a good story to tell to others at school. The evidence did not demonstrate that the push was inappropriate or violated any state rules or statutes governing teachers. There was no evidence that Ms. Weisman was less effective as a teacher due to this incident. W.F. testified that on two occasions he witnessed Respondent state to the class that they were "acting like jackasses." J.F.'s testimony was vague and inconsistent. Specifically, W.F. testified that on the first occasion, Respondent stated to the class that they were "acting like jackasses" after class members refused to return to their seats during an altercation between two students occurring outside the classroom. The classroom students were generally cheering the fight on. With respect to the second instance, W.F. testified that Respondent made the statement after W.F. and several of his classmates tricked Respondent into placing her hand on a pencil sharpener covered with glue. W.F. conceded the description was an accurate description of the behavior of the students at the time. At no time did Respondent call an individual student an improper name. Although W.F. testified he was embarrassed by Ms. Weisman, W.F.'s testimony is not persuasive on this point. Nor is it realistic to conclude any significant embarrassment given the bold nature of W.F.'s behavior which preceded these comments. W.F. also testified on direct examination that he witnessed Respondent call the class "a bunch of rat bastards." Again W.F.'s testimony was vague and inconsistent. During cross-examination, however, W.F. testified that the remark was made to a specific female student during a verbal altercation between the student and Respondent. However, Respondent denies ever using or knowing the term "rat bastard." Given Respondent's demeanor, the inconsistency, and the unreliability of the other evidence, Respondent's testimony is the more credible. There was no credible evidence that any student was ever affected in any way by these incidences. No evidence of any change in grades or reduced test scores was introduced at the hearing. An increase in disciplinary referrals was noted by the principal, but that increase was not shown to be tied to these incidences. The increase, if any, was more likely to be due to the fact that she was a new teacher, teaching out of field, who was more strict with her students and demanded more from them. Moreover, statistics supporting this perceived increase in disciplinary referrals was not offered at the hearing. Indeed, later testing showed Ms. Weisman's students improved their test scores. However, the testing was for a different year and class. It was not clear that the same students were being tested. The improvement does show that Ms. Weisman is an effective teacher.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission enter a final order dismissing the Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 23d day of December, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DIANE CLEAVINGER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23d day of December, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Matthew K. Foster, Esquire Edward T. Bauer, Esquire Brooks, Leboef, Bennett & Foster, P.A. 863 East Park Avenue Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Kathleen M. Richards, Executive Director Education Practices Commission Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street, Room 224E Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 John O. Williams, Esquire Williams & Holz, P.A. 211 East Virginia Street The Cambridge Centre Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Marian Lambeth, Program Specialist Bureau of Educator Standards Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street, Suite 224E Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
Findings Of Fact The Respondent holds Florida teaching certificate 195597 covering the area of industrial arts. During the school years of 1973-1974 to 1983-1984, Respondent had no persistent pattern involving professional incompetency or unprofessional conduct. The Respondent was employed as a teacher of industrial arts at Vero Beach Junior High School in the Indian River County School District during the 1983-1984, 1984-1985, and the first three weeks of the 1985-1986 school years, until his suspension effective September 16, 1985. During 1983-1984, he also apparently taught mathematics. At various times, the classes Respondent taught at Vero Beach Junior High School included some classes directed to regular students and others directed to exceptional students, including the educable mentally handicapped (EMH). EMH students have intelligence quotients (IQs) of less than 70. At all times, all of the industrial arts classes taught by Respondent were elective. THE 1983-1984 SCHOOL YEAR Mr. Marion Bass was the Respondent's supervising principal at all times material to the administrative complaint. As the Respondent's supervising principal, Mr. Bass observed and evaluated the Respondent's teaching performance. Prior to evaluating the Respondent's teaching performance, Principal Bass received formal training in the evaluation of teachers and had 12 to 13 years of practical experience in conducting teacher evaluations. Principal Bass observed the Respondent's teaching performance informally on two or three occasions during the 1983- 1984 school year and twice formally at the end of that school year. In his observations and evaluation of Respondent, Bass found the Respondent's performance to be unsatisfactory. Specifically, Bass observed that the Respondent did not satisfactorily control students in his classroom, his planning was not as complete as it should be, implementation of his lesson plans was not acceptable, and Respondent's "voice procedures" (i.e., diction and volume) were unsatisfactory. Bass opined that the Respondent did not have a specific structure to his industrial arts class. Even if students were knowledgeable of their assigned task on a given day, the students were not always on-task. Instead, they would be out of their seats, moving around the room and discussing topics unrelated to class work. In Bass' view, Respondent failed to provide proper supervision of the students, and as a result, the students did not appear to respect the Respondent's instructions. Bass observed that students ignored Respondent's instructions to sit down and be quiet. On other occasions, he observed that the Respondent ignored some students' off-task behavior while he was involved with others. However, none of Bass' observations in the 1983- 1984 school year were reduced to writing nor formally discussed with Respondent, and the formal year-end evaluation of Respondent of March 16, 1984, by Laurent Smith, Assistant Principal, rated Respondent as overall satisfactory and his contract was subsequently renewed for the 1984-1985 school year. On or about May 15, 1984, Bass inadvertently discovered that the Respondent was not knowledgeable of his mathematics students' progress in their skills continuum. This was particularly disturbing to Bass in that each student is required by the Indian River County School Board to accomplish at least 70 percent proficiency in state-mandated skills in order to be promoted to the next higher grade. Thereafter, Bass made an attempt to ascertain the level of skills accomplishment by the students in Respondent's classes. While doing so, Bass questioned Respondent about the matter. The Respondent indicated that certain students were in the Compensatory Education Program. Bass subsequently learned that those students were not compensatory education students but were Level Two students. It alarmed Bass to discover that the Respondent did not even know what level of students he had been teaching for seven months. THE 1984-1985 SCHOOL YEAR On September 17, 1984, Bass prepared a memorandum to Dr. Douglas King, Director of Personnel for the School Board. In that memorandum, Bass outlined his concerns regarding Respondent's teaching performance. The memorandum addressed seven general areas of deficiency: failure to control students' behavior; failure to provide meaningful structure and direction and failure to support an enthusiasm for learning; failure to demonstrate the ability to plan a course of study with overall goals and objectives providing direction and continuity in the subject matter; difficulty in implementing what lesson plans the Respondent did develop; addressing only a small percentage of the students in his class when presenting a lesson; difficulty with proper grammar and diction; and a demonstrated lack of understanding for the basic academic and social skill needs of his students. Following preparation of his September 17, 1984 memorandum, Bass continued to make observations of the Respondent's teaching performance. Bass observed the Respondent's teaching performance on October 15, 1984 and completed a Classroom Observation Instrument containing his notes of that observation which rated the Respondent's performance in the classroom as "extremely poor, one of great concern." The notations on the Classroom Observation Instrument itself indicate that the Respondent gave directions to a limited number of students, assisted only a small number of students, engaged in very little class communication, did not enunciate well, used poor diction, utilized "very poor" classroom management, and failed to keep the students on task. Following Bass' observation of the Respondent on October 15, 1984, he prepared a written memorandum of his concerns and his suggestions for improvement. He met with the Respondent and discussed both his concerns and suggestions for improvement. The Respondent received a copy of the memorandum. During this conference, Bass told the Respondent that he was there to help him in any way that he knew how to help. Bass expressed similar sentiments in other conferences with Respondent regarding Respondent's teaching performance and offered to allow Respondent to visit other schools and other teachers both in and out of the school district in an effort to help Respondent remediate his observed deficiencies. On September 13, 1984, Theresa Wagner, chairperson of the vocational department of Vero Beach Junior High School, sent all teachers within that department a memorandum establishing dates for computer usage. One of the components of the Respondent's industrial arts curriculum was demonstration of computer literacy. Respondent received a copy of the memorandum. On October 15, 1984, the first day of the Respondent's assigned time block for use of the computers, the Respondent advised Ms. Wagner that his class was not ready to use the computers and would probably not be ready the following week. However, until that date, Respondent had expressed no problem with the time block assigned to him and had requested no assistance in preparing for this new function of the curriculum. When Ms. Wagner reminded him that computer skills were a part of his required curriculum at that time, Respondent replied that he could not understand why he had to teach something he did not know anything about. Further, he stated that he could not learn it. Respondent apparently made two attempts to learn the computer and gave up. Respondent's failure to adapt himself to the new computer programming time blocks inconvenienced Ms. Wagner and others who were required to share the single computer during the finite time available in a school day/school year. At hearing, Respondent advanced the theory that because his major was in TIE (Trade Industrial Education), he ought not to be required to adapt to teaching manufacturing, woodworking, and computer literacy, which are outside of his expressed field of interest, but which apparently are very much contemplated within the general field of industrial arts. Additionally, he felt he certainly should not be required to adapt to teaching all these "new" areas at one time. However, it appears he had been teaching woodworking for some period of time anyway. Overall, Respondent made it clear he did not want to teach the curriculum assigned to him. As a part of her assigned responsibilities as department chairperson, Ms. Wagner was required to observe each of the teachers within the vocational department. On October 10, 1984, she observed the Respondent. Her memorandum to the Respondent dated October 10, 1984, outlined her observations as well as her suggestions for his improvement. Ms. Wagner had difficulty understanding the Respondent when he was teaching. She suggested that he talk louder and make a special effort to enunciate clearly. She observed that the Respondent failed to provide a handout for one girl in the class. The girl raised her hand and had it up for five minutes before the Respondent noticed the student and gave her the handout. Ms. Wagner observed a lot of non-essential, non-productive movement of students in the classroom. Finally, she noted among other things that the last lesson plans which the Respondent turned in were for the week of September 17, 1984, although he was on notice that he was supposed to turn in lesson plans weekly. Ms. Wagner observed little, if any, instruction being provided by the Respondent. The students failed to respond to the Respondent's directions and did not pay attention to him or obey his directions. In fact, the majority of the students ignored the Respondent during this observation by Ms. Wagner. Lesson plans were an on-going problem between Ms. Wagner and Respondent. Only when Ms. Wagner specifically asked the Respondent for lesson plans did she receive them. Those which she did receive from the Respondent were not satisfactory. In her opinion, any substitute teacher would have had a very difficult time teaching effectively based upon the plans which Respondent did submit to her. Although other departmental personnel sometimes missed turning in lesson plans timely, everyone except the Respondent eventually "caught up" with their lesson plans. Ms. Wagner later observed Respondent on several other occasions. Those observations of the Respondent's teaching performance were consistent with her observations on October 10, 1984. On September 14, 1984, Richard Thomas, Vero Beach Junior High School Dean and Assistant Principal, observed the Respondent's classroom performance. Mr. Thomas is trained for such evaluations. Using the teacher evaluation form containing 39 observable "behaviors," Thomas rated the Respondent as "needs improvement" in 14 of the 39 categories based upon his observations on September 14, 1984. Thomas categorized the Respondent's performance on that date as incompetent. On September 20, 1984, Thomas became aware that the Respondent was sending a large number of student referrals to the Guidance Department for the purpose of having the students seek reassignments from his classes to other classes. Respondent's action was creating problems for the Guidance Department, the students, and the Respondent himself because by that point in the school year, a change of classes under the circumstances was impossible. Thomas prepared a letter dated September 20, 1984 to Respondent requesting that he refrain from such conduct. In the letter, Thomas offered to discuss the matter with the Respondent. Respondent's reasons for his acceleration of referrals was never made entirely clear. However, one explanation offered by the Respondent at formal hearing was that when he had behavioral problems with students in his classes and was not permitted to lock them out of the class (see findings of fact 21, 32, and 33 infra.) and was not otherwise "backed up" by Principal Bass and Assistant Principal Thomas, Respondent felt justified, as a strict disciplinarian, in referring those students whom he viewed as troublemakers to the Guidance Department either to be dealt with by Thomas or for reassignment elsewhere. Under the circumstances, this explanation by Respondent of strict discipline is flawed and unreasonable and evidences lack of classroom control. At hearing, Respondent expressed his objection to having exceptional and special education students in his classes due to their low IQs, even though he admittedly had taken courses in this area. Although all school and School Board personnel assumed Respondent was certified for EMH students, Respondent was not specifically so-certified. He maintained that because of their low IQs, EMH students created special discipline problems, which fact was confirmed by Mr. LaPointe and Mr. Bass. However, Mr. LaPointe, a specialist in the field, also opined that an industrial arts certificate should qualify Respondent to teach industrial arts to EMH students. Respondent attributed much of his professional troubles to the inability of the exceptional education students to learn as opposed to his own inability to teach. At first, Respondent further suggested Bass and Thomas had also assigned students with disciplinary problems to both his regular and exceptional classes. However, he could not substantiate this premise in light of the elective nature of all industrial arts classes. Overall, Respondent only made it clear that he did not want to teach the students assigned to him. On October 17, 1984, as a follow-up to his September 14, 1984 visit, Thomas observed Respondent teaching and prepared a Classroom Observation Instrument. He concluded that the Respondent's "with-it-ness" was poor because Respondent was oblivious to a fight which was about to break out between students in the back of his classroom and because a student had to approach the Respondent and almost physically pull on the Respondent's arm to get his attention. Thomas observed that the Respondent was not in control of his class and that he failed to maintain the attention of all students. Thomas observed no improvement in Respondent's performance on his October 17, 1984 return, except that on that particular date, the Respondent did attempt to implement some organizational structure through the use of an overhead projection covering four items. On November 9, 1984, Thomas wrote the Respondent a letter in regard to the manufacture of weapons by students in the Respondent's manufacturing class. Prior to that date, Thomas had verbally cautioned the Respondent about the manufacture of weapons by students in his class. No direct competent substantial evidence nor any corroborated hearsay supports a finding of fact that "weapons" per se were in fact created in Respondent's class with his knowledge. It was, however, demonstrated that various lathe-produced wooden objects, possibly intended by Respondent for use as chair legs, were smuggled out of his class by students. Although Respondent denied certain items described as "swords" and "paddles" were weapons and even that some of the "chair legs" were made in his class, the fact that he admitted that a paddle and certain "chair legs" could have been smuggled out by students indicates an appalling nonchalance for his duties of supervision of young people. It was further demonstrated that a sign bearing the expression "I LOVE SEX" and that a paddle bearing the expression "DUCK BUT!" [sic] were manufactured in Respondent's class without his disapproval. On October 16, 1984, Jean Carter, the Director of Vocational Adult and Community Education for the Indian River County School District, observed the Respondent's second period class. Ms. Carter is a qualified observer with the Florida Performance Measurement System. During her observation on October 16, 1984, Ms. Carter noted that the Respondent did not begin his class promptly. Students talked in loud voices and milled around the room. The Respondent had difficulty communicating with his students. Most of his comments were inaudible. The Respondent turned his back on some students when he spoke to other students. Few students attempted to write the notes shown on the overhead projector as the Respondent ordered. Other students never faced the projector, and the Respondent seemed to be unaware that they were not taking notes. Ms. Carter observed several students off task. Four or five students were throwing paper and spitballs around the room. The word "important" was misspelled on the transparency. Respondent exhibited no enthusiasm for the subject matter, never praised the students, spoke positively, or smiled. He did not appear to enjoy teaching. In November 1984, a request was made to the Florida Department of Education to provide an assistance review of the Respondent's teaching performance. The purpose of the assistance review was to provide the Respondent with assistance in becoming a more proficient teacher. Following the assistance review, a very lengthy, detailed report was prepared by the reviewer and submitted to the Indian River County School District. On February 7, 1985, a conference was held involving Superintendent Burns; Principal Bass; Dr. Eddie Hudson, Personnel Coordinator; Mrs. Shirley Hanawait, Assistant Superintendent; Ms. Carolyn Sheppard, CEA President; Jean Carter, Director of Vocational Education; Dr. Douglas King, Director of Personnel; and the Respondent. The purpose of the conference was to review the report prepared by the Department of Education assistance reviewer and to make arrangements to provide Respondent with additional help and assistance as needed. In that conference, Respondent's supervisors made arrangements to correct, repair, or adjust equipment in Respondent's classroom; to have another industrial arts teacher assist Respondent; to provide Respondent with relief time to observe other professional teachers in the same vocational area; to send the Respondent to two professional conferences; to provide Respondent with professional journals; to provide Respondent with assistance through the department head; and to provide assistance from Mr. Bass in the areas of grading, lesson plans, supervision, management, and organization. Mr. Bass, Superintendent Burns, and Dr. King emphasized to Respondent that he must begin to show improvement in his performance immediately. Respondent was advised that if no improvement were demonstrated immediately, Respondent could be removed from continuing contract status or dismissed altogether. The Respondent received a copy of the conference summary prepared by Dr. King as a reminder of the action Respondent was expected to take to improve his classroom performance. Ms. Carter participated in the conference held with the Respondent on February 7, 1985, to review the assistance review report and to provide the Respondent with help. Her purpose in attending the conference was to provide the Respondent with assistance in any way possible to improve his performance. Ms. Carter later made sure that all of the Respondent's equipment was in proper working order, that he had copies of the performance standards mandated for the courses he taught, that he received professional journals, and that he was authorized to attend two conferences relating to his subject matter area. Respondent did not, however, attend either conference. Subsequent to the February 7, 1985 conference, Bass conducted five classroom observations of the Respondent's teaching performance. On each occasion, Bass completed a Classroom Observation Instrument. On March 8, 1985, Bass observed the Respondent's class and found that no valid learning activity was going on in the classroom. On March 12, 1985 at 7:35 a.m., Bass observed the Respondent's industrial arts class for exceptional education students. There were seven or eight students in the class. Bass observed that the Respondent gave the students approximately 15 vocabulary words to look up while the Respondent straightened up the classroom. In Bass' opinion, such an assignment for exceptional education students was inappropriate due to their limited intelligence, attention span, and the purpose for which such students were enrolled in the course. Mr. Bass characterized Respondent's performance on that date as poor. Subsequently, on the same date, Bass observed the Respondent teaching manufacturing to a regular class of about 17 students. Although Bass characterized Respondent's performance in this class as better, he still gave it an overall score of poor because Respondent's presentation lacked continuity and his discourse was "disjointed." Bass continued to note that the Respondent had difficulty with grammar, enunciation, and projection of an enthusiasm for the subject matter. On March 18, 1985, Bass again observed Respondent's manufacturing class for exceptional students. Although Bass also termed this observation better than those he had made of Respondent in the past, he still considered it a below average observation. On the observation instrument itself, Bass noted that the Respondent was late to class, wasted time by marching the students to a film which was set up in a classroom in a separate building, provided no orientation or preview prior to showing the film, and conducted no discussion of the film after it had been shown. He further noted that the Respondent performed much of the project work himself, thereby limiting the hands-on experience that the students were in the class to receive. That same day, Bass observed the Respondent's manufacturing class for regular students, which viewed the same film as had been shown to the exceptional education students. The content of the film would have been acceptably pitched for both types of classes if Respondent had appropriately introduced the film and had led post-film discussions appropriate to each level, which he did not. Bass felt that once again a lot of time was wasted, there was scant review of the film's content, and there existed the same problems with diction and discourse by the Respondent. Bass concluded that the Respondent's teaching performance remained virtually unchanged from what it had been prior to the assistance review. Bass' March 27, 1985 Annual Teacher Evaluation for Respondent's 1984- 1985 school year resulted in a rating of "needs improvement" in 23 of the 39 "behaviors" evaluated on the form. Bass met with Respondent on March 28, 1985 to review the evaluation and discuss it with him. Before Bass could begin discussion of the evaluation, Respondent stated, "Let me make a long story short, Mr. Bass, I am not going to sign my evaluation even if we talk all week. You're 100 percent right on what you wrote, but I'm still not signing it." On more than six occasions, Thomas found the Respondent's students out of class when they were supposed to be in his room. On certain occasions Respondent locked them out. When the Respondent locked students out of his classroom, those students were free to roam the halls with the excuse that they had been locked out of their classroom. On one occasion, school staff members caught one of the Respondent's students committing a theft at a time when he was supposed to be in Respondent's class. Although the theft incident was not conclusively tied to a date Respondent locked students out of his classroom, Respondent was still responsible for indicating to the administration that the student was "cutting" and had not done so. On June 4, 1985, Bass learned that the Respondent was locking his students out of his classroom. Final examinations were being conducted at the time. The Respondent told Bass that he could not make the students stay in class without this procedure, which he had designed to catch students when a student still in the classroom tried to let those who had left the classroom back into the classroom from the outside. Respondent also told Bass he could not give an examination and control the students if the door were not locked. Respondent repeated this explanation from the stand at formal hearing as if his plan were designed to catch those who "cut" class, but Respondent also maintained it was a method of timing the number of minutes students remained out of class so that Respondent could tell their parents why he would not permit them ever to leave the room again, apparently even for reasons as mundane and urgent as using the bathroom. Such reasoning process is flawed and unreasonable, if not downright silly. The Respondent refused to sign the incident report resulting from this incident and further refused to discuss the incident report with Mr. Bass. As a vocational education teacher, Respondent was required to submit end of the year reports to Ms. Carter as a part of state and federal funding requirements. Ms. Carter had informed Respondent of the requirement that he prepare and submit the reports prior to leaving school. Respondent testified he submitted the required reports at the end of the 1984-1985 school year by placing them in the school office mail box of Ms. Wagner. Ms. Carter testified that she did not receive them. The problem with transmittal of the reports appears to be one that could have been resolved by Ms. Wagner or someone notifying the Respondent immediately by telephone that they had not been received. This was not done, although Ms. Carter and Dr. King followed up with written reproofs. Such an infraction under these circumstances will not support discipline of Respondent. Respondent's annual evaluation for the 1984-1985 school year, dated March 27, 1985 and referenced above, was not satisfactory, but Respondent's contract was subsequently renewed for the 1985-1986 year. THE 1985-1986 SCHOOL YEAR On September 3, 1985, Howard LaPointe, then a staff associate in the Exceptional Education Program of the Indian River County School District, observed Respondent teaching exceptional students in his manufacturing class. Although school had begun on August 17, 1985, Respondent took his class on a tour of the other building on September 3, 1985. Mr. LaPointe observed numerous deficiencies during his observation and noted that the Respondent needed assistance in the areas of classroom management, instructional materials, orientation to class work, utilization of student notebooks, and competency based upon the curriculum guide. On September 13, 1985, the Respondent met in Principal Bass' office with Bass, LaPointe, Carolyn Sheppard (president of the teachers' union) and Dr. King to review LaPointe's observation conducted on September 3, 1985 and to discuss suggestions for Respondent's professional improvement. As Mr. LaPointe began to present his plan for providing assistance to the Respondent, Respondent became angry and upset. After a sharp exchange between LaPointe and Respondent, wherein LaPointe asked Respondent "What the hell do you expect the children to do?" or some similarly-phrased question, Respondent left the meeting and did not return. Bass and Dr. King walked down to the Respondent's office, a glass- enclosed room. They could see Respondent was in a highly emotional, agitated state. The Respondent had knocked his personal television set onto the floor. It was not demonstrated that Respondent damaged a projector or any other school property or that two obscenities uttered by Respondent were heard by anyone other than a fellow teacher, Mr. Humphrey, who had entered the enclosed room as a friend to calm down the Respondent. Had Bass and King not followed Respondent to his own office they would not have even observed his agitated state. Respondent was excused for the remainder of the school day after Mr. Humphrey calmed him down. Later that day, Superintendent Burns suspended the Respondent without pay. Respondent was subsequently terminated by the School Board for incompetence, misconduct, and gross insubordination. On December 12, 1985, Dr. King notified the Florida Department of Education that the Respondent had been dismissed from his position of employment. Dr. King recommended that the Respondent's teaching certificate be permanently revoked. Based upon Bass' observations and evaluations of the Respondent's teaching performance over a period of more than two years, Bass holds the professional opinion that the Respondent is an incompetent teacher. Bass would not recommend the Respondent for employment in Indian River County or any other school district. In Bass' professional opinion, students in the Respondent's regular classroom did not receive even a minimal educational experience and the exceptional students received only a minimal educational experience. No evidence whatsoever supporting the allegations of unprofessional conduct at Clemans Elementary School was offered and no such unprofessional conduct is found. No direct competent substantial evidence nor any corroborated hearsay supports the allegation that Respondent used profanity in the presence of students and no such conduct is found. Respondent's pre-1983-1984 school year evaluations are technically irrelevant to the charges at bar but were admitted to give Respondent every opportunity to "prove up" his allegations that his current problems arose from personal or personality conflicts with Bass and Thomas. Unfortunately for Respondent, these exhibits show some of his deficiencies are long-standing but were sporadic as opposed to forming a consistent pattern early on. Otherwise, these exhibits are too remote in time to have great weight. Respondent also defended, pursuant to Rule 6B-4.08(2), Florida Administrative Code, upon the premise that after a bombardment of evaluations and conferences he felt he was being harassed rather than given corrective assistance and that he was given too little time in which to make the adjustments required. Rule 613-4.08(2) requires Respondent's immediate supervisor to make all efforts possible to aid Respondent to correct the matter which caused his dismissal. Although this is a questionable defense when, as here, Petitioner and the School Board are not one and the same entity, some of Respondent's allegations have a mitigating effect. There is some merit to his allegations with regard to the timeframe and limited assistance provided but none as to the allegation of harassment. Respondent did unsuccessfully apply for transfer and volunteer to accept a custodial job at the same pay in order to avoid his problems with Bass and Thomas, but he could not demonstrate at formal hearing any reason other than his own attitude and teaching performance for Bass' and Thomas' poor evaluations and refusal to transfer him. Moreover, the consistency of the other observers' analyses belies any conspiracy or vendetta against Respondent on the part of Bass and Thomas. There is some evidence that Respondent made some minimal improvements in technique after assistance was provided by the professional reviewer, which assistance Mr. Bass characterized as the only significant remediation provided the Respondent. Upon his superiors' advice, Respondent also conferred with at least one other teacher in his field who came to his school. Ms. Carter testified that Respondent was authorized to attend two professional conferences and he did not, in fact, attend, but it is unclear from her testimony and the supporting documentary evidence whether federal grant monies were ever authorized for Respondent's attendance at either of these conferences. Mr. LaPointe's evidence that special assistance with regard to exceptional students was offered by him but rebuffed by Respondent is indicative of Respondent's poor attitude. There is evidence that equipment was repaired for Respondent and although not stated by any one witness in so many words, it may be inferred from the collective testimony of several witnesses that Respondent could have requested time off to observe other industrial arts classes and confer with other industrial arts teachers outside his own school but failed to do so. In light of Respondent's satisfactory rating in the 1983-1984 school year, the fact that significant efforts to assist Respondent did not commence until November 1984 (reviewer visit) and that internal assistance did not begin in earnest until the February 7, 1985 conference, I find Respondent had really only from February to March 1985 to avoid an initial unfavorable annual evaluation. From March 1985 to school's closing in June and part of August and September in the 1985-1986 school year was all the time permitted Respondent for remediation because he was dismissed in mid-September 1985. Even so, he showed some minimal improvement which has been considered.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent's Florida teaching certificate be suspended for three years with provision for reinstatement as provided by statute. DONE AND ORDERED this 22nd day of June, 1987, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 904/488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of June, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 86-4101 The following constitute rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, upon the parties' respective proposed findings of fact (FOF). Petitioner's Proposed FOF: Covered in FOF 1. Covered in FOF 3. Covered in FOF 5. 4-5 Covered in FOF 6. 6-8 Covered in FOF 7 but amplified to conform to the record as a whole. Covered in FOF 8. Covered in FOF 9. Accepted that there were such reports but rejected as set forth in FOF 41. Covered in FOF 10. Covered in FOF 11 except as to the subordinate and unnecessary. 14-15. Covered in FOF 12 except as to the subordinate and unnecessary. Covered in FOF 25. Covered in FOF 26. 18-19. Covered in FOF 27. 20. Covered in FOF 29. 21-23. Covered and amplified in FOF 30 to conform to the record, but eliminating the legal argument from proposal 23. 24. Covered in FOF 31. The commentary about the presence of a secretary and Respondent's mood are rejected as immaterial in light of no charges of insubordination. Further, mild anger in the presence of the Principal's secretary is hardly likely to impair Respondent's effectiveness. 25-26. Covered, modified and amplified as necessary in FOF 33 to convey the full scope of the material facts of record. That which is cumulative, subordinate and unnecessary has been rejected. 27. Covered in FOF 36; what is rejected is subordinate and unnecessary. 28-29. Covered in FOF 39; what is rejected is cumulative. 30-31. Covered in FOF 13-14 and amplified to more accurately convey the evidence of record as a whole. Covered in FOF 16 but modified for clarity. Covered in FOF 18. Except for elimination of the cumulative, covered in FOF 17. Except as cumulative, subordinate and unnecessary, covered in FOF 19. Covered in FOF 19. 37-38. Covered and amplified in FOF 20 to more accurately reflect the evidence of record as a whole. 39-42. Except as cumulative, subordinate or unnecessary, covered in FOF 22. 43-46, and 49 Rejected as not supported by the direct, credible competent substantial evidence of record as a whole. 47-48. Accepted that reports were written but rejected on the basis of uncorroborated hearsay, unsupported by direct credible competent substantial evidence in the record as a whole as covered in FOF 41. 50. Covered and amplified to more accurately reflect the record evidence as a whole in FOF 32. See also FOF 33. 51-53. Except for the cumulative, subordinate and unnecessary, covered in FOF 24. Covered in FOF 28 and 42. Rejected as not supported by the record as a whole. All witnesses are entirely credible on this point and Respondent's testimony is not truly contrary to other testimony. The benefit of the doubt must be resolved in his favor in this penal procedure. 56-58. Rejected as stated as not supported by the credible competent substantial evidence of record as a whole which is set out in FOF 37. 59. Covered in FOF 38. 60-61. Rejected as subordinate and unnecessary except as covered in FOF 38. 62. Covered in FOF 38. 63-65. Rejected as irrelevant except as covered in FOF 42. Rejected as cumulative. See FOF 20, 21, 32 and 33. Accepted but covered as set forth in FOF 23 since the proposal does not constitute an ultimate, material fact. Rejected as legal argument except to the extent it is peripherally covered in FOF 42. Respondent's Proposed FOF: 1-3. Accepted but cumulative upon the acceptance of similar proposals by Petitioner. 4. Rejected as stated in that it constitutes argument but the topic is covered in FOF 7, 21 and 42, as supported by the record as a whole. 5-8. Accepted but cumulative upon the acceptance of similar proposals by Petitioner. This proposal is not a sentence and is therefore rejected. Accepted that Respondent had the feelings and made the statement but rejected as stated as misleading of the record as a whole. See FOF 37. Except as covered in FOF 4, rejected as irrelevant, although true. Accepted but this goes to Respondent's overall incompetency and is not an ultimate material fact and therefore not adopted. See FOF 21. Rejected as some of these were not admitted in evidence and those in evidence do not support the proposal, neither does the record evidence as a whole. COPIES FURNISHED: J. David Holder, Esquire Post Office Box 1694 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Charles L. Hendley, Esquire 1500 Delaware Avenue Fort Pierce, Florida 33450 Karen B. Wilde, Executive Director Education Practices Commission 125 Knott Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Marlene T. Greenfield Administrator Professional Practices Services 319 West Madison Street, Room 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 =================================================================
The Issue The issue presented here concerns an Administrative Complaint brought by Ralph D. Turlington, as Commissioner of Education, against Willie Lynn Brown, calling for the revocation, suspension or other appropriate disciplinary action against the Respondent's teaching certificate issued by the State of Florida. The contention in this Administrative Complaint is that the Respondent, while employed at the A. D. Harris Sixth Grade Center, conducted physical acts with a minor male student, involving the student sitting on the Respondent's lap and the Respondent taking one of the student's hands and rubbing it against the Respondent's genital area. For these alleged acts of misconduct, the Petitioner attempts to discipline the Respondent, in keeping with the provisions of Section 231.28, Florida Statutes, in that the Respondent is reputedly guilty of gross immorality and an act of moral turpitude and conduct which seriously reduces his effectiveness as an employee of the Bay County School Board and further the Petitioner, in keeping with the Provisions of Section 231.09, Florida Statutes, claims that the conduct on the part of the Respondent is conduct which fails to provide a proper example for students.
Findings Of Fact This matter is here presented for consideration following an Administrative Complaint brought by Ralph D. Turlington, as Commissioner of Education, State of Florida, vs. Willie Lynn Brown, Respondent. The dispute concerns the allegations as alluded to in the Issues statement of this Recommended Order. The Administrative Complaint is dated April 9, 1981. After receipt of the Administrative Complaint, the Respondent requested a formal hearing pursuant to Subsection 120.57(1), Florida Statutes. In turn, the Petitioner in this action asked that the matter be conducted by the Division of Administrative Hearings, this request being forwarded on May 14, 1981. After consideration of certain preliminary matters, the final hearing in this cause was conducted on July 10 and 14, 1981. The Respondent holds Florida Teaching Certificate No. 385083, valid through June, 1985, and covering the areas of elementary education, early childhood education and administration/supervision. At all times pertinent to this matter, the Respondent Willie Lynn Brown, was employed by the Bay County School Board as a teacher at the A. D. Harris Sixth Grade Center. In the school year 1980-81, a local civic club in Panama City, Florida, held an oratorical contest for the benefit of students in the Bay County School System. Among the participants in that contest were students from the A. D. Harris Sixth Grade Center where the Respondent taught. Brown acted in the capacity as advisor to those students and met with the students from the Harris Center on several occasions to aid the students in the preparation of their speeches, and in the presentation of those speeches. One of the students participating in the oratorical contest was Steve William Rudd, a minor. Rudd was not a student in Brown's regular academic classes. The involvement Rudd had with Brown prior to the oratorical contest was merely to the extent of knowing that Brown was a teacher at Harris. On the first occasion of Rudd's participation with Brown in the speech contest, Brown met with Rudd and other students in the auditorium at the school and listened to their speeches and critiqued their presentation. The next occasion in which Brown took part in the preparation of the students for the oratorical contest occurred in Brown's homeroom, at which time the general nature of the relationship between Brown and the students was as occurred at the auditorium session. On the third occasion in which the Respondent met with Rudd there was also in attendance a second student, William Arnold Stevenson. This session was held in the classroom of another teacher. On that occasion Stevenson was allowed to present his speech while Brown listened and Rudd waited for his turn. When Stevenson had concluded his speech, he left the room leaving Brown and Rudd alone. Rudd then commenced his speech standing at the front of the room, and he concluded that presentation while Brown moved around the room listening to the speech. Brown then made certain suggestions to Rudd about correcting Rudd's speech presentation and then asked Rudd to move to the back of the classroom. Rudd complied with that request. Rudd then began to give his speech again while standing at the back of the room in the area of a desk. At this time the Respondent was moving around the room and eventually approached Rudd. At that point, Brown placed his folded arms on the back of Rudd at Rudd's shoulder level. At this juncture, Rudd was facing the front of the classroom and the Respondent was directly behind him. The front of Brown's body was touching the back of Rudd's person. Brown remained in this position until Rudd had concluded his speech. During this interval, Brown made no comment. The interval for this occurrence was approximately two or three minutes. After Rudd had presented his speech for the second time, the Respondent went and took a seat in a chair in the back of the classroom. The Respondent then instructed the student to sit on the Respondent's lap. Rudd complied and seated himself on the Respondent's leg, in the area of the Respondent's knee. The Respondent then gestured with his hands, pointing in the direction of the Respondent's groin area, meaning the genital area, and said to the student, "sit right here." The Respondent then pulled the student toward his body and at that time the student was seated on the Respondent's genital area with his back against the Respondent's chest. No comment was made during this part of the episode, which lasted a short time. Brown then moved Rudd back away from his body into the original location near his knee. He then took the student's right hand and with the student's hands stroked Brown's genital area. This maneuver with the student's hand was a momentary event. While the student was seated on the Respondent's lap, he was concerned for his welfare and in particular worried about the door which had been locked by the Respondent. The student thought that the door was locked such that he, the student, could not exit. In fact, the door was locked barring entry from persons outside the room. Brown released Rudd's hand and told Rudd that he could get out and that Brown was sorry for what had occurred. He told the student this several times, once when the student got up, once when the student was midway in the classroom approaching the door, and once when the student got to the door. On the same day as the event transpired, Rudd reported the incident to the Principal at Harris Center, one James Griffin. Griffin then confronted the Respondent with the student's allegations by asking Brown if the story that Rudd had told about the incident was true. Brown responded, "Yes, it is." When Griffin asked him why he did it, Brown said, "I don't know." Griffin then commented to Brown that the matter was a very serious offense and that Brown might be suspended or dismissed from the school system, to which Brown replied, "I know this." Griffin then asked Brown if he was prepared to face the consequences, and Brown replied, Yes, I guess I am." Since the time of the event, some of the other students in the sixth grade center have referred to Rudd as a "gay boy," meaning that Rudd was a homosexual, due to his circumstance with Brown and that Rudd "felt Mr. Brown off," meaning that Rudd had manipulated the Respondent's penis. Rudd had bean teased about the event by other students, and the students did not talk to him. Rudd has felt insecure in his home and has desired to sleep on the floor in a sleeping bag with the lights on because of this event with the Respondent. Rudd has felt as if someone were watching him even in his home, in particular that the person was the Respondent. The student has also felt that he did not wish to sleep by a window and has chosen to sleep in the middle of the room, and at times has slept on a couch in the living room of his home. The aforementioned treatment of the student by other children in the sixth grade center led Rudd's parents to change his bus transportation to avoid a confrontation with the children. Nonetheless, it has not been necessary for the student to seek psychiatric assistance and he is recovering from the trauma of the subject occurrence. In spite of attempts by the school authorities to deter publication of this incident, students, teachers, parents, staff and other persons within the community have learned of the incident and Principal Griffin is of the persuasion that there would be dissension with teachers, parents and students should Brown be allowed back as an instructor in the school. Griffin feels that there would be a lack of trust in that Brown has lost his effectiveness as an instructor. Likewise, Bay County Superintendent Holman who is familiar with the case facts, is of the persuasion that Brown's effectiveness as a teacher in Bay County has been seriously reduced. Nothing offered in defense rebuts the opinion of these educators. Following the incident, a meeting was held on March 6, 1981, between the Respondent and Pete Holman, Superintendent of Schools in Bay County, Florida, with the Principal Griffin being in attendance. At that time Brown again admitted that the incident had occurred and subsequent to this meeting Brown was suspended from his teaching duties in the Bay County system. There ensued an administrative complaint brought by Ralph D. Turlington as Commissioner of Education in the State of Florida, and the Bay County School Board took action to discharge the Respondent as an employee.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the facts of this case, the conclusions of law reached in matters in aggravation and mitigation, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Respondent, Willie Lynn Brown, have his teacher's certificate in the State of Florida, revoked permanently. 1/ DONE and ENTERED this 21st day of September, 1981, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of September, 1981.
The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent violated Section 231.28(1)(i), Florida Statutes (2000), and Florida Administrative Code Rule 6B-1.006(3)(a) and (e), by using unauthorized methods of disciplining a student before allowing the student to visit the school nurse. (All chapter and section references are to Florida Statutes (2000) unless otherwise stated. Unless otherwise stated, all references to rules are to rules promulgated in the Florida Administrative Code in effect on the date of this Recommended Order.)
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency responsible for regulating certified teachers in the state. Respondent holds Florida Educator's Certificate Number 416888. Respondent's Florida teaching certificate is valid through June 30, 2003. Respondent is employed as a Special Education Teacher at Moore Haven Junior High School (the "school") in the Glades County School District (the "District"). Respondent has a long-standing practice in his classroom of disciplining male students by making them do push-ups and hold books while their arms are extended in front of them. Both practices violate rules and policies of the school and the District. Respondent had actual or constructive knowledge that discipline by push-ups and holding books violated the policies of the school and the District. The student handbook distributed to each teacher, including Respondent, prescribed the authorized methods of discipline. None of the authorized methods included pushups or holding books. Respondent submitted some evidence that administrators in the school deviated from officially stated policies and rules by condoning unauthorized methods of discipline such as pushups or holding books. However, the evidence submitted by Respondent was less than a preponderance of the evidence and was adequately refuted by evidence submitted by Petitioner. All of the students in Respondent's class are exceptional education students. Each student has an identified disability. Any method of discipline other than that authorized by applicable policies and rules must be clearly stated and authorized in each student's individual education plan ("IEP"). C.W. was an exceptional education student in Respondent's class on February 9, 2000. The IEP for C.W. did not authorize any alternative methods of discipline. During class on February 9, 2000, Respondent approached C.W. because C.W. had his head on his desk during class. Respondent instructed C.W. to do his assignment. C.W. complained that he felt sick and requested to see the school nurse. Respondent and C.W. exchanged brief repartees. The evidence is less than clear and convincing that during the exchange Respondent prevented C.W. from going to the nurse's office. Some witnesses testified that Respondent refused C.W.'s request to go to the nurse's office. Other witnesses in the classroom during the exchange testified that Respondent initially instructed C.W. to go to the nurse's office but that C.W. refused either to go to the nurse's office or to do his assignment. The testimony of all of those witnesses was credible. Because C.W. refused to do his assignment in class, Respondent instructed C.W. to stand at the back of the class with his arms extended in front of him. C.W. complied with Respondent's instruction. Respondent successfully completed the alternative method of discipline that required C.W. to stand at the back of the class. However, Respondent failed to effectuate other unauthorized methods of discipline that Respondent attempted. When Respondent placed books in C.W.'s arms, C.W. did not hold the books in his arms. Rather, C.W. dropped his arms, and the books fell to the floor. When Respondent instructed C.W. to do push-ups, C.W. refused Respondent's instruction. C.W. left Respondent's classroom under his own volition and went to the office of the school nurse. The evidence does not reveal the amount of time that transpired between Respondent's initial instruction for C.W. to stand at the back of the class and the time when C.W. left for the nurse's office. Therefore, there is no evidentiary basis to quantify the delay in medical attention. When C.W. arrived at the nurse's office, the school nurse determined that C.W. was feverish, suffered chills, and that his complexion was "splotchy." The nurse telephoned C.W.'s parents. The parents took C.W. home and subsequently to the hospital. The examining physician at the hospital diagnosed C.W. as suffering from mastoiditis. The physician admitted C.W. to the hospital for two days and successfully treated the medical condition. The medical condition represented an exigent threat of harm to C.W.'s physical safety within the meaning of Rule 6B-1.006(3)(a). As previously found, however, the evidence is less than clear and convincing that Respondent violated Rule 6B-1.006(3)(a) by failing to make a reasonable effort to protect the student from a medical condition that was harmful to the student's physical safety. Conflicting evidence was less than clear and convincing evidence that Respondent delayed C.W.'s attempt to see the school nurse or the length of any delay allegedly caused by Respondent. C.W. left Respondent's class under his own volition and went directly to the nurse's office. The conflicting evidence was less than clear and convincing that any delay between Respondent's initial contact with the student and the student's departure to the school nurse was significant enough that Respondent failed to make a reasonable effort to protect C.W. from conditions harmful to the student's physical safety. The evidence is clear and convincing that Respondent violated Rule 6B-1.006(3)(a) by failing to make a reasonable effort to protect C.W. from conditions harmful to learning. The methods of discipline attempted by Respondent were harmful to C.W.'s ability to learn, violated C.W.'s IEP, and violated school policy. For the same reasons, Respondent violated Rule 6B-1.006(3)(e) by intentionally exposing a student to unnecessary embarrassment and disparagement. Administrative staff at the school conducted a full investigation of the matter. Upon conclusion of the investigation, the District issued a written letter of reprimand to Respondent. The letter of reprimand issued by the District is disciplinary action by Respondent's employer. The judicial doctrine of double jeopardy does not preclude disciplinary action by Petitioner against Respondent's license. No evidence shows that Respondent has any prior disciplinary history by either Petitioner or the District. Petitioner seeks to have Respondent's teaching certificate suspended for 12 months. However, Petitioner's proposed penalty is based on the premise that Respondent committed all of the allegations in the Administrative Complaint.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Commission enter a final order finding Respondent guilty of violating Section 231.28(1)(i) and Rule 6B-1.006(3)(a) and (e), and suspending Respondent's teaching certificate in Florida for six months. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of February, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ___________________________________ DANIEL MANRY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of February, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Ron Weaver, Esquire Ron Weaver & Associates 528 East Park Avenue Tallahassee, Florida 32301-1518 Kathleen M. Richards, Executive Director Educational Practices Commission Department of Education 224-E Florida Education Center 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Jerry W. Whitmore, Program Director Professional Practices Commission Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street, Suite 224-E Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 James A. Robinson, General Counsel Department of Education The Capitol, Suite 1701 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Carl Zahner, Esquire Department of Education The Capitol, Suite 1701 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Moses N. Mwaura 214 Tenth Street Post Office Box 856 Moore Haven, Florida 33471
The Issue The issues to be determined are whether Respondent violated section 1012.795(d) and (j), Florida Statutes (2011), or Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A-10.081(3)(a) and (e), and if so, what penalty should be imposed by the Education Practices Commission.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is a teacher certified by the State of Florida, holding Florida Educator’s Certificate 958493, covering the areas of Elementary Education, Exceptional Student Education (ESE), and Autism Spectrum Disorders, valid through June 30, 2014. At all times material to the allegations in this case, Respondent was employed by the Bay County School District as an ESE teacher at Margaret K. Lewis Center (MKL Center). This is a second career for Respondent. She left a business and technology career to pursue a career in education, specifically working with students with special needs. Respondent obtained her Master’s degree and a special designation to work with special needs students. Respondent was motivated to pursue teaching special education students because she had an aunt with Down’s syndrome who had limited educational opportunities. Respondent taught at Oscar Patterson Elementary for the 2006-2007 school year, and then transferred to MKL Center beginning in the 2007-2008 school year. After Respondent received her state educational certification in autism spectrum disorders, she requested to be assigned to teach an ESE class beginning with the 2010-2011 school year. That year, she was voted as “Teacher of the Year” by her peers. The class to which Respondent was assigned was a challenging class. It was not unusual for students in this classroom to bite, kick, hit, pinch, and trip staff. During the 2010-2011 school year, the number of students was reduced from eight to four, and the number of paraprofessionals was increased from two to three. During the 2011-2012 school year, there were four students in her classroom: C.B., J.B., K.M., and D.C. One paraprofessional, Patricia Lewis, was assigned specifically to D.C. The other two paraprofessionals, Jennifer Shea Saulmon and Nancy Davis, worked with all of the children, and when able to, Patricia Lewis did as well. Ms. Davis, Ms. Saulmon, and Ms. Lewis have seven, fourteen and twenty-seven years of experience, respectively. C.B. had a severe mental disability with a limited ability to comprehend verbal communications and a limited ability to communicate. C.B.’s communication involved single words, sounds, and gestures. He could discern the speaker’s mood, but might not fully understand the content of what was said. For example, C.B. might not understand that someone was saying hello, but would understand that the speaker was friendly towards him. C.B. also had problematic behaviors including biting, pinching, scratching, and hitting. C.B. had an awkward gait and wore ankle orthotics (AFO’s), a type of plastic brace, over his shoe and lower leg to provide stability from the foot to the leg, and to assist in improving his ability to walk. C.B. was ten years old. J.B. was approximately 11 years old in January 2012, and was diagnosed with Autism Spectrum Disorder. He also had a limited ability to communicate using single words, sounds and utterances, and gestures. J.B. also used an iPad to communicate. Over time, someone working with J.B. would develop a greater ability to understand and communicate with him. J.B.’s difficult behaviors included spitting, hitting, kicking, and pinching. K.M. was 11 in January 2012. K.M. was diagnosed with Down’s syndrome, and had previously suffered a stroke which limited her use of one arm. She also had significant intellectual limitations. However, K.M.’s ability to communicate was greater than the other members of the class, and she could understand verbal communications. In addition, K.M. was more independent than her classmates, and was a risk for elopement from both the classroom and the campus. As stated by one of the paraprofessionals, K.M. “was a runner.” By all accounts, K.M.’s behaviors were consistently disruptive, and managing her in a classroom took a significant effort. D.C. was also 11 in January 2012. D.C. was diagnosed as autistic and engaged in repeated self-injurious behaviors. When upset, D.C. would repeatedly strike himself in the head and face, and he often wore a football helmet as a protective measure. D.C. was very strong, and attempts to prevent him from hurting himself could often result in staff members being hurt. There was testimony at hearing that his behavior plan addressed how many he times he was allowed to hit himself or how long he was allowed to hit himself without intervention. However, the behavior plan for D.C. was not in evidence. A portion of the classroom was designed specifically for D.C., with padded walls and a padded floor, in light of D.C.’s tendency to hit his head against hard surfaces as well. He had some beads that he played with that sometimes calmed him. At some point during the 2011-2012 school year, Respondent began to show signs that the stresses of her very challenging classroom were having an effect on her. After the Christmas break, her stress seemed to have intensified. Respondent was having trouble sleeping, suffered from high blood pressure and pain from injuries sustained in the classroom, and was experiencing some depression. Respondent began to “self- medicate” with alcohol at night. There was no credible evidence that Respondent ever drank during the day or was under the influence of alcohol during work hours. At the end of the school day on January 30, 2012, Ms. Lewis approached assistant principal Elizabeth Swedlund to voice some concerns about Respondent’s behavior in the classroom. Ms. Lewis related some events that had occurred in the classroom that day, as well as some general concerns regarding treatment of the students in the classroom. She voiced the following concerns: that Respondent took away D.C.’s beads and would allow him to hit himself for a period of time longer than allowed by his treatment plan; that she made statements to K.M. such as “I could kill you” or “go play in the street”; and that she hit C.B. with a closed hand and kicked him while working in “circle time.” On January 31, 2012, Ms. Swedlund notified her principal, Britt Smith, of the conversation with Ms. Lewis. She decided to speak with the other paraprofessionals in the classroom and after doing so, to report the information to the abuse registry. Principal Smith notified Sharon Michalik, the District’s Executive Director of Human Resources, of the issue with respect to Respondent. As a result, Mike Jones, Chief of Safety, initiated an investigation. Mike Jones visited the campus the following day. All three paraprofessionals were interviewed and asked to provide written statements. He took Respondent for a drug and urine test, which came back negative. On Friday, February 3, 2012, Respondent was notified to meet with Ms. Michalik and other administrators to review the allegations. After this meeting, Respondent was suspended with pay, and the School District planned to proceed with a recommendation for termination. However, instead the parties entered an agreement executed on March 30, 2012, through which Respondent would take a medical leave of absence and would only be allowed to return to a position with the School District if she was found fit for duty. If she returned, she would be required to submit to random drug and alcohol testing. On March 30, 2012, the Department of Children and Families issued a letter to Respondent stating that it found no indicators of physical injury and no indicators of bizarre punishment. On April 27, 2012, Respondent was evaluated by psychologist David J. Smith who opined that at that time, she was not fit for duty. She was re-evaluated on July 26, 2012, and cleared to return to work. At that time, she was assigned to a different school. One of the issues raised by Ms. Lewis was that Respondent permitted D.C. to hit himself more frequently than allowed by his behavior plan. The Administrative Complaint specifically charges that she allowed D.C. to hit himself repeatedly for up to ten minutes, while his behavior plan indicated that he should be allowed to hit himself up to three times. The behavior plan was not entered into evidence. The evidence was unclear as to what the plan actually required, and it was equally unclear exactly what Respondent was doing. For example, there was testimony that she would attempt to redirect him once he started hitting himself, but did not physically intervene for ten minutes. There was other testimony that there was never a time when he was allowed to simply hit himself with no one doing anything. Without being able to examine the behavior plan, and without being able to specify the exact incident or incidents at issue, it is not possible to determine whether Respondent was varying from the requirements of the behavior plan, or if any variation was significant. Ms. Davis reported to Ms. Swedlund that on or about Friday, January 27, 2012, J.B. was in time-out because of bad behaviors. While he was in time-out, he was sitting behind a rolling partition, and Respondent was holding the partition in place so that J.B. would have to remain in place. J.B. spat at Respondent, which is something he did often. Ms. Davis reported that while holding the partition Respondent spat back at him, an action that shocked Ms. Davis. Respondent denies ever spitting on J.B. She testified via deposition that J.B. was spitting while in time-out, and she was holding the barrier while talking to him. She responded to his behavior by saying “you do not spit.” Respondent testified that it was possible that some spittle may have fallen on J.B., but that she never intentionally spit on him. The only person who testified regarding the spitting was Ms. Davis. While she was a very credible witness, there was no testimony regarding how close she was to Ms. Henson or to J.B., or that J.B. reacted in any way. Neither of the other paraprofessionals in the room testified that they saw or heard about the incident, and it is implausible to think that such behavior would go without comment. It is conceivable that in saying, “you do not spit,” that spittle would result. Given the high burden of proof for this proceeding, the allegation has not been proven by clear and convincing evidence. As previously stated, K.M. presented a classroom management problem. She had a tendency to run around the classroom, take her clothes off, or run out of the classroom and sometimes out of the building. She also would tear up items in the classroom and could be very disruptive. Ms. Lewis felt that Respondent had a hard time getting past her dislike of the child. She had heard her say things like, “I could just kill you right now,” and “go ahead and go into the street.” While Ms. Lewis believed K.M. could understand such statements, she did not react to them, except perhaps to run faster. Ms. Lewis did not believe that Ms. Henson was serious when she made the statements, but more likely made them when frustrated by K.M.’s behavior. Respondent did not recall ever making such statements. Neither Ms. Lewis nor the Administrative Complaint identified exactly when Respondent was to have made these statements, although Ms. Lewis specified that they were statements made at different times. While Ms. Lewis testified that she believed Respondent did not like K.M., it is just as likely that she did not dislike the child, but was extremely frustrated by her behavior. All of the paraprofessionals testified that Respondent truly loved the children she worked with, but that she was frustrated and overwhelmed in the very challenging classroom in which she taught. While the evidence was clear and convincing that Respondent made the statements, even Ms. Lewis testified that she did not believe Respondent was serious when she made them. Regardless, the statements were not appropriate statements to make to a child, especially a child with limited intellectual abilities that might not be able to discern whether Respondent was serious. They are, by their nature, disparaging statements. Finally, the incident which caused Ms. Lewis to approach Ms. Swedlund about Respondent involved Respondent’s reactions to C.B. C.B. liked to work on the computer. He would play computer games, such as Dora the Explorer, and was rewarded with computer time for good behavior and finishing all of his assigned work. On Friday, January 27, 2012, C.B. had a rough day, and had been hitting, pinching, and kicking staff. Respondent had spoken with his mother about his behaviors to see if there had been any changes at home that might have contributed to his aggressive behavior. Respondent had told C.B.’s mother that they would have to try some different methods to get C.B. to comply, and that his playing on the computer all day would have to stop. The paraprofessionals testified that on Monday, January 30, 2012, Respondent seemed agitated all day. One said she seemed to carry the frustrations of Friday into Monday. That morning Jennifer Shea Saulmon went to the cafeteria to pick up C.B., who had walked from the parent pickup area without incident, and seemed to be in a good mood. When they reached the classroom, C.B. went straight to the computers. Respondent immediately told him that he could not have computer time. Ms. Saulmon was upset by this, because C.B. had not misbehaved that morning. She questioned Ms. Henson’s decision, and Respondent responded that he could not play on the computer all the time. He then completed his morning work without any disruption, and then walked over to the computers. Ms. Saulmon told him he could not play on the computer at that time. At about 9:15 a.m., the class began “circle time.” During this time, the students sit on the outside of a u-shaped table while Respondent sits on the inside of the “u.” C.B. did not like circle time. On this particular day, he was sitting at the end of the u-shaped table, to Respondent’s left. He began, as he often did, to hit and bite. According to Ms. Saulmon, this behavior usually subsides after about five minutes. This day, however, it did not. C.B. continued to pinch and hit Respondent. In response, Respondent put her arm up with a closed hand (so that the child could not pull and bend back a finger) in a blocking motion, as the teachers and paraprofessionals had been taught to do in order to protect themselves. She said out loud, “I’m blocking, I’m blocking.” However, rather than simply holding her arm up to block against any blows, she would swing her arm toward him to stop the blow, and in doing so, made contact with his arm. Although to Ms. Davis it looked like Respondent was hitting him, she never thought Respondent was trying to hurt C.B. Each time Respondent blocked C.B., he pinched her again, and she blocked him again, which made him angrier. He then started kicking her, and Ms. Davis and Ms. Saulmon believed she kicked him back. However, neither paraprofessional could say that Respondent actually made contact with C.B. They were pretty certain that C.B. was kicking Respondent, and they could see movement toward him by Respondent, and C.B. responded angrily by squealing as he usually did when frustrated or angry. It is just as likely that Respondent was using her leg or foot to try to block C.B.’s kicks, as she stated in her deposition, and that C.B. was angry because she was blocking him. Nonetheless, Respondent’s clear agitation in the classroom that day led to Ms. Lewis’ conversation with Ms. Swedlund about Respondent’s behavior. While all of the paraprofessionals stated concerns about Ms. Henson’s ability to handle that particular class, all were very supportive of her continuing to teach in the special education area. All three seemed to think that the environment of that particular class, which by any measure would be extremely challenging, is one that overwhelmed Respondent, and that she had been in that setting too long. When Respondent returned to work at the beginning of the 2012-2013 school year, she was transferred to Beach Elementary School. The principal at the new school is Glenda Nouskhajian. Ms. Nouskhajian considers Respondent to be one of her lead teachers in the ESE department, and has no performance- related concerns about her. The only issue Respondent has had since coming to Beach Elementary was a minor paper-work issue related to transferring schools within the district. Respondent is not working in a stand-alone classroom like she was before. She is what Ms. Nouskhajian referred to as a “push-in,” meaning that she goes into other teachers’ classrooms and works with students in small groups in an inclusion setting. She works with the lowest quartile of students, and helps with all of these students’ interventions. Ms. Nouskhajian testified that the students with whom Respondent works are making “great strides,” and Respondent is an educator she would “absolutely” seek to retain. Ms. Nouskhajian knew that there was an issue at Respondent’s prior school, but did not investigate the details. She stated that Respondent had been placed at Beach Elementary by Sharon Michalik, and “I knew that if she was a danger to students, Sharon Michalik would not have placed her at my school . . . . That she went through the counseling and everything she had to do so when she came to my school it was a total fresh start.” Since coming to Beach Elementary, Respondent’s evaluation for the 2012-2013 school year was overall effective, with all categories rated as effective or highly effective. In sum, there is clear and convincing evidence that Respondent made inappropriate remarks to student K.M. There is not clear and convincing evidence that Respondent spat on J.B., or that she hit or kicked C.B. Likewise, there is not clear and convincing evidence that she varied significantly from D.C.’s behavioral plan or acted in a way that allowed him to hurt himself. There is clear and convincing evidence that Respondent was frustrated and overwhelmed in the autistic classroom and, despite having asked for the assignment, had been teaching in that environment for too long to be effective, given the violent tendencies of the children in that setting. There is clear and convincing evidence that she took a leave of absence in lieu of termination and could only return to the classroom after an evaluation found her fit for duty. A change of setting was needed and has served to re-invigorate Respondent.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission enter a final order finding that Respondent has violated rule 6A- 10.081(3)(e). It is further recommended that Respondent be reprimanded and placed on probation for a period of two years, subject to such terms and conditions as the Commission in its discretion may impose. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of March, 2014, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LISA SHEARER NELSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of March, 2014. COPIES FURNISHED: David Holder, Esquire J. David Holder PA 387 Lakeside Drive Defuniak Springs, Florida 32435 Emily Moore, Esquire Florida Education Association 213 South Adams Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Gretchen Kelley Brantley, Executive Director Education Practices Commission Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street, Suite 224 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Matthew Carson, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Marian Lambeth, Bureau Chief Bureau of Professional Practices Services Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 224-E 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399
